Chance and evolution

Michali · #1 2nd November 2003, 12:47 AM

Would every evolutionist here agree that the number of generations we are made of should greatly outnumber the total number of mutations that we are made of?

Nathan Poe · #2 2nd November 2003, 12:53 AM

Originally Posted by Michali

Would every evolutionist here agree that the number of generations we are made of should greatly outnumber the total number of mutations that we are made of?

As we're not "made of" mutations, your question makes no sense.

If you're trying to say what I think you are, then the answer would be no, not at all, quite the opposite, in fact.

Arikay · #3 2nd November 2003, 01:02 AM

I would say that the number of total animals (organisms) between us and our common ancestor to say monkeys, should greatly outnumber the number of mutations that have happend to us since that common ancestor.

Nathan Poe · #4 2nd November 2003, 01:10 AM

Originally Posted by Arikay

I would say that the number of total animals (organisms) between us and our common ancestor to say monkeys, should greatly outnumber the number of mutations that have happend to us since that common ancestor.

But he's talking generations, not organisms.

And considering all the different mutations it would take to split that common ancestor into the different animals, as well as the neutral mutations we contain, then that's a whole lot of mutations...

the_malevolent_milk_man · #5 2nd November 2003, 01:21 AM

It all depends upon the circumstances. Also if you're talking about a population there can be large variations so telling what is normal and what is a mutation is difficult in certain situations.

I would think that mutations would outnumber generations since accidents happen when DNA replicates itself. Then of course you have the inherent adaptability (ordered chaos if you want) of sexual reproduction and the mixing of DNA.

Also it depends on how big of a mutation you're talking about. If you're talking about large scale changes (arms to wings etc) then yeah, I guess generations would outnumber that cumulitive mutation. However that seemingly single mutation is the result of many mutations accumulated over time, so it could also be argued that mutations still out number generations.

All depends on the parameters you set and if you look at mutations thru the phenotype or genotype.

Arikay · #6 2nd November 2003, 01:30 AM

Yeah I know.

Originally Posted by Nathan Poe

But he's talking generations, not organisms.

And considering all the different mutations it would take to split that common ancestor into the different animals, as well as the neutral mutations we contain, then that's a whole lot of mutations...

Data · #7 2nd November 2003, 04:28 AM

Originally Posted by Michali

Would every evolutionist here agree that the number of generations we are made of should greatly outnumber the total number of mutations that we are made of?

Nope. You have many new mutations in your body. They probably aren't harmful, or even beneficial, just.. neutral. Aren't bad or good.

wblastyn · #8 2nd November 2003, 05:00 AM

Originally Posted by Data

Nope. You have many new mutations in your body. They probably aren't harmful, or even beneficial, just.. neutral. Aren't bad or good.

So is it right in saying that there will always be errors in copying DNA?

Data · #9 2nd November 2003, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by wblastyn

So is it right in saying that there will always be errors in copying DNA?

Yea, I'd say so.

Michali · #10 2nd November 2003, 07:40 AM

I'm sorry. It was almost 1:00 when I posted that, so I made it a "one-liner".

I was just thinking, if every cell in my body is actually the product of evolution, the number of animals I descended from would have to outnumber the number of cells in my body. But, I knew this could have a better explanation, and Milk Man posted it.

In populations, there is mixing. And sometimes, mutations can be more than something so small.